Essential data variables for a minimum dataset for head and neck cancer trials and clinical research: HNCIG consensus recommendations and database.

The Head and Neck Cancer International Group (HNCIG) has undertaken an international modified Delphi process to reach consensus on the essential data variables to be included in a minimum database for HNC research. Endorsed by 19 research organisations representing 34 countries, these recommendations provide the framework to facilitate and harmonise data collection and sharing for HNC research. These variables have also been incorporated into a ready to use downloadable HNCIG minimum database, available from the HNCIG website.

The use of routinely collected healthcare records for outcome assessment in clinical trials: a UK perspective.

The use of routinely collected electronic healthcare records (EHR) for outcome assessment in clinical trials has been described as a 'disruptive' new technique more than a decade ago. Despite this potential, significant methodological issues and regulatory barriers have hampered the progress in this area. This article discusses the key considerations that trialists should take into account when incorporating EHR into their trials. These include considerations of the clinical relevance of the outcome, data timeliness and quality, ethical and regulatory issues, and some practical considerations for clinical trials units. In addition, this article describes the benefits of using EHR which include cost, reduced trial burden for participants and staff, follow up efficiencies, and improved health economic evaluation procedures. We also describe the major regulatory and start up costs of using EHR in clinical trials. This article focuses on the UK specific EHR landscape in clinical trials and would help researchers and trials units considering the use of this method of outcome data collection in their next trial. If the issues described are mitigated, this method will be a formidable tool for conducting pragmatic clinical trials.

Developing generic templates to shape the future for conducting integrated research platform trials.

BACKGROUND: Interventional clinical studies conducted in the regulated drug research environment are designed using International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) regulatory guidance documents: ICH E6 (R2) Good Clinical Practice-scientific guideline, first published in 2002 and last updated in 2016. This document provides an international ethical and scientific quality standard for designing and conducting trials that involve the participation of human subjects. Recently, there has been heightened awareness of the importance of integrated research platform trials (IRPs) designed to evaluate multiple therapies simultaneously. The use of a single master protocol as a key source document to fulfill trial conduct obligations has resulted in a re-examination of the templates used to fulfill the dynamic regulatory and modern drug development environment challenges. METHODS: Regulatory medical writing, biostatistical, and other members of EU Patient-cEntric clinicAl tRial pLatforms (EU-PEARL) developed the suite of templates for IRPs over a 3.5-year period. Stakeholders contributing expertise included academic hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, non-governmental organizations, patient representative groups, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). RESULTS: The suite of templates for IRPs based on TransCelerate's Common Protocol Template (CPT) and statistical analysis plan (SAP) should help authors navigate relevant guidelines as they create study design content relevant for today's IRP studies. It offers practical suggestions for adaptive platform designs which offer flexible features such as dropping treatments for futility or adding new treatments to be tested during a trial. The EU-PEARL suite of templates for IRPs comprises a preface, followed by the actual resource. The preface clarifies the intended use and underlying principles that inform resource utility. The preface lists references contributing to the development of the resource. The resource includes TransCelerate CPT guidance text, and EU-PEARL-derived guidance text, distinguished from one another using shading. Rationale comments are used throughout for clarification purposes. In addition, a user-friendly, functional, and informative Platform Trials Best Practices tool to support the setup, design, planning, implementation, and conduct of complex and innovative trials to support multi-sourced/multi-company platform trials is also provided. Together, the EU-PEARL suite of templates and the Platform Trials Best Practices tool constitute the reference user manual. CONCLUSIONS: This publication is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the EU-PEARL suite of templates for designing IRPs. The reference user manual and the associated website ( http://www.eu-pearl ) should facilitate the designing of IRP trials.

Quantifying Site Burden to Optimize Protocol Performance.

BACKGROUND: The increase in protocol complexity and the resulting rise in the effort required by investigative sites to implement protocols have been well documented, but existing measures of site burden only offer an incomplete view of the burden experienced by site personnel. The introduction of Decentralized Clinical Trials-trials supported by remote and virtual technologies and services-is expected to impact the burden imposed on sites, but this impact has not yet been systematically measured. METHODS: The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development conducted an online survey among clinical research sites worldwide and gathered 355 responses assessing the burden associated with distinct activities and procedures related to the implementation of clinical trial protocols using traditional and decentralized approaches. RESULTS: A high percentage of investigative sites (50.5%) have had no experience with DCT solutions and only a small percentage (6.6%) have participated in fully decentralized clinical trials. Overall, half of respondents view DCT solutions as more burdensome than traditional clinical trials. In general, activities related to operational and managerial aspects of trial implementation were viewed as less burdensome when done remotely, while clinical procedures or elements that require study team-patient interactions were viewed as more burdensome when using DCT approaches versus in-person or traditional methods.

Practical Guidelines for Standardised Resolution of Important Protocol Deviations in Clinical Trials Conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa.

A clinical trial is any research on human subjects that involves an investigational medicinal product or device. Investigational medicinal products include unlicensed drugs or drugs used outside the product license (e.g. for a new indication) (ICH-GCP). As per the internationally accepted ICH-GCP guidelines, clinical trials should be conducted strictly per the approved protocol. However, during the lifecycle of a trial, protocol deviations may occur. Under ICH efficacy guidelines, protocol deviations are divided into non-important (minor) or important (major), and the latter can jeopardise the participant's rights, safety or the quality of data generated by the study. Existing guidelines on protocol deviation management do not detail or standardise actions to be taken for participants, investigational products, data or samples as part of a holistic management of important protocol deviations. Herein, we propose guidelines to address the current literature gap and promote the standardisation of actions to address important protocol deviations in clinical trials. The advised actions should complement the existing local institutional review board and national regulatory authority requirements.

Leveraging external control data in the design and analysis of neuro-oncology trials: Pearls and perils.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials have been the gold standard for evaluating medical treatments for many decades but they are often criticized for requiring large sample sizes. Given the urgent need for better therapies for glioblastoma, it has been argued that data collected from patients treated with the standard regimen can provide high-quality external control data to supplement or replace concurrent control arm in future glioblastoma trials. METHODS: In this article, we provide an in-depth appraisal of the use of external control data in the context of neuro-oncology trials. We describe several clinical trial designs with particular attention to how external information is utilized and address common fallacies that may lead to inappropriate adoptions of external control data. RESULTS: Using 2 completed glioblastoma trials, we illustrate the use of an assessment tool that lays out a blueprint for assembling a high-quality external control data set. Using statistical simulations, we draw caution from scenarios where these approaches can fall short on controlling the type I error rate. CONCLUSIONS: While this approach may hold promise in generating informative data in certain settings, this sense of optimism should be tampered with a healthy dose of skepticism due to a myriad of design and analysis challenges articulated in this review. Importantly, careful planning is key to its successful implementation.

Strengthening Reporting of Neonatal Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is variability in the selection and reporting of outcomes in neonatal trials with key information frequently omitted. This can impact applicability of trial findings to clinicians, families, and caregivers, and impair evidence synthesis. The Neonatal Core Outcomes Set describes outcomes agreed as clinically important that should be assessed in all neonatal trials, and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Outcomes 2022 is a new, harmonized, evidence-based reporting guideline for trial outcomes. We reviewed published trials using CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidance to identify exemplars of neonatal core outcome reporting to strengthen description of outcomes in future trial publications. METHODS: Neonatal trials including >100 participants per arm published between 2015 to 2020 with a primary outcome included in the Neonatal Core Outcome Set were identified. Primary outcome reporting was reviewed using CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines by assessors recruited from Cochrane Neonatal. Examples of clear and complete outcome reporting were identified with verbatim text extracted from trial reports. RESULTS: Thirty-six trials were reviewed by 39 assessors. Examples of good reporting for CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 criteria were identified and subdivided into 3 outcome categories: "survival," "short-term neonatal complications," and "long-term developmental outcomes" depending on the core outcomes to which they relate. These examples are presented to strengthen future research reporting. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified examples of good trial outcome reporting. These illustrate how important neonatal outcomes should be reported to meet the CONSORT 2010 and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 guidelines. Emulating these examples will improve the transmission of information relating to outcomes and reduce associated research waste.